Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 So what will likely be one of the biggest movies of the year was shot 2D on 35mm. Good grief what is the world coming to? http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4285641472/tt1392170 R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake Z Larson Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I think 35mm was a great choice for the gritty-ness of the subject matter in the movie. And really, who needs 3D anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 35mm isnt " Gritty" dont know what you have been watching ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Ayer Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I'm seeing it tomorrow... I can't wait. I really love the look from the trailers an the book was awesome. I'm sure more will be posted by me after that... I wish I had something of value to add.... sooon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vedran Rapo Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Really looking forward seeing it in cinema tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Alright film - internal logic made simple for the target demographic ... Paced well such that I wasn't watching the cinematography with an eagle eye (if I had one in the first place) - did notice some interesting bokeh 'glimmering' around the edges of objects in focus and the BG that I'd like to understand more. I was dreading that the film would be all teal and orange, the poster was pushed certainly in the warm direction - timing was relatively neutral, maybe a shift here and there between the districts and the Capital. Initial shakey cam annoyance cleared after about 5mins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Initial shakey cam annoyance cleared after about 5mins. Why does Hollywood refuse to invest in tri-pods? R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markshaw Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Was a little underwhelmed by the movie, though the girl friend loved it. A little too kiddie friendly for my tastes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted March 27, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted March 27, 2012 Well, I went and broke down to see what is ostensibly a kids' film. Still, it was entertaining for what it was. It was fun to see Frederick Brown's "Arena" sci-fi short story reborn for a newer generation. Still, I couldn't help but wonder where Captain Kirk and the Gorn were, and even though the plot and story were lifted directly from older sci-fi libraries, it was kind of fun to see it reborn. I had planned on tearing into it, accusing it of being a rip off of Soylent Green, Adam Strange, Star Trek, Logan's Run and other stuff, but there was a unique enough flourish placed in this iteration of the basic story that I thought it quite original. A couple of things; I didn't quite understand the full back-story, and the buildup, as noted by Variety, took an awful long time. The action is sporatic, but it's actually a very smart film in spite of a few caterings to the younger demographic. I think film makers who make alleged block busters for older audiences should take notes. Just my two bits. The key scene and thrust of the film, done some three decades prior; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVpi80iWFeE On shakey-cam; I'm pretty exhausted of the style. I remember when it became the big thing back in 1986. SNL even did a parody skit about a company that sold tractors using the style. Here we are over 20 years later, and a lot of you pros are still opting to use this shooting style? Just... why? ... :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 On shakey-cam; I'm pretty exhausted of the style. I remember when it became the big thing back in 1986. SNL even did a parody skit about a company that sold tractors using the style. Here we are over 20 years later, and a lot of you pros are still opting to use this shooting style? Just... why? ... :( I personally hate it. Except for when doing an actors POV shot as they look around a corner or down a street, then it should be hand held. Because as we all know....when a human looks at something, the image is all shaky. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted March 27, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted March 27, 2012 I personally hate it. Except for when doing an actors POV shot as they look around a corner or down a street, then it should be hand held. Because as we all know....when a human looks at something, the image is all shaky. R, I can understand POVs, but, well, I don't know. I think I've had enough of young film makers trying to break in with "edgy" shots by shaking the lens back and forth while zoomed up on some subject. I thought that style wouldn't last beyond whatever product I first saw it used on way back in college. But it's never left. Now it's just down right annoying as anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 For me (over cooked) handheld doesn't mimic the saccade movement on human vision at all - it serves more as a cue that the footage is real time / gathered news / or whats that term - ah yes 'immediate' ... Anyway, like I said after a few minutes I was no longer bothered by it - so much so I couldn't say if it was still there or it had actually mellowed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake Z Larson Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 35mm isnt " Gritty" dont know what you have been watching ? Sorry, I think I meant Grainy. Don't get me wrong, I love grain and I love 35mm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted March 28, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted March 28, 2012 For me (over cooked) handheld doesn't mimic the saccade movement on human vision at all - it serves more as a cue that the footage is real time / gathered news / or whats that term - ah yes 'immediate' ... Anyway, like I said after a few minutes I was no longer bothered by it - so much so I couldn't say if it was still there or it had actually mellowed out. For me it's like at first they were selling perfume, or coffee or something that was "intimate", and I figured it would last a couple of years, then fade. But it's like, it hasn't. And it's gotten on my nerves, so much to the point where I can't watch new films by "up and coming" film makers because they use it all the time. :angry: I wonder what Ansel Adams photos would have been like if he had used "shakey cam" for his stills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Jackson Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The film was fairly entertaining. However the screaming by teenybop girls in the auditorium was very annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Yeh, we had a group get the giggles when one of them decided to cough and hiccup at the same time - she then proceeded to vomit in her cup. I screwed up and threw my ticket stub at the back of the head of the first one that dared to pull out her cellphone, she turned around expecting to see someone of a similar age but instead she got me smiling back at her a few rows back - she got the message without any further prompting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Why does Hollywood refuse to invest in tri-pods? R, Because shaky, bouncy, can't focus on a single subject for 2 freakin' seconds is so "REALLLLL" :rolleyes: Cinema Verite abuse....thank you, France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Vincent Sweeney Posted April 4, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted April 4, 2012 For me Barry Lyndon has always been one of the best examples of well thought-out handheld camera use. Can you even recall it having any? It does and it's perfectly (big surprise) executed there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVpi80iWFeE This brings up another thing that drives me nuts, why does everyone in the future dress like they just stepped out of Acropolis? One would THINK in a thousand years, clothing might have advanced a LITTLE bit. How about fibers that turn logos into interactive wearable billboards or swirling artwork patterns that wash across the fabric. Back to the Future II seems to be the only movie I can remember where clothing technology kept up with the times. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Jackson Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 This brings up another thing that drives me nuts, why does everyone in the future dress like they just stepped out of Acropolis? One would THINK in a thousand years, clothing might have advanced a LITTLE bit. How about fibers that turn logos into interactive wearable billboards or swirling artwork patterns that wash across the fabric. Back to the Future II seems to be the only movie I can remember where clothing technology kept up with the times. B) I get you on that, they always look so cheesy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Saw this finally, aside from the disturbing subject matter and the incredibly fake looking "dog creatures" not bad at all. Can't say as I missed 3D or digital. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I liked it, except for the incredibly irritating camerawork in the first 10 minutes.. I like handheld work, particularly when the camera is roving around, pulling out details and looks, but when the camera is active like that, the absolute last thing you should do is shake the camera. In the opening minutes, the camera never settled on anything long enough or still enough to see what I was supposed to be looking at. There was also an unacceptably high number of soft shots, I would imagine as a result of the 1st AC never being sure what the camera was pointing at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Hulnick Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I enjoyed the movie. I also did not enjoy certain members of the audience, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Jackson Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I liked it, except for the incredibly irritating camerawork in the first 10 minutes.. I like handheld work, particularly when the camera is roving around, pulling out details and looks, but when the camera is active like that, the absolute last thing you should do is shake the camera. In the opening minutes, the camera never settled on anything long enough or still enough to see what I was supposed to be looking at. There was also an unacceptably high number of soft shots, I would imagine as a result of the 1st AC never being sure what the camera was pointing at. Have to agree about the initial scenes. Very disconcerting, found it hard to focus on anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Solomon Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 (edited) I'm curious as to how much of the forest scenes were artificial light vs. just the sun and bounces. Anyone opinions? There were literally four or six people in the entire theater I was at on a Friday night...that place is gonna be closing soon...sad. Edited May 5, 2012 by Aaron Solomon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now